The North Pacific v. The Swedish Republic of New Kenya

With respect, that totally evades the question as to how strictly you will be following universal court etiquette on examination and cross examination. the adopted TNP rules give a great deal of leeway to the presiding justice, and I think I am justified in asking in advance how strictly you will be presiding, so as to better present my case.
 
Questions should be relevant to the case.

Witnesses without relevant expertise should not be asked for their opinion, excepting that they may be asked their understanding of matters they directly observed.

Counsel should avoid leading questions if possible on examination.

Questions must not be asked of the defendant which could violate their right against self-incrimination to answer.

Either counsel may, if they find it necessary, question the credibility of any witness.

Witnesses may decline to answer questions which would tend to incriminate themselves or which would reveal official secrets of The North Pacific, Albion, or Europeia.

I cannot guarantee that these are the only arguments that could succeed as objections, but these are the criteria apparent to me at this time.
 
So that I am clear:

1. Will leading questions be allowed of expert and hostile witnesses, as is the understood practice in real life courts?

2. Will cross examination be limited to cross examining the points raised by the main examination (this is the standard practice), or will the cross examiner be allowed to pursue new lines of inquiry?
 
On a few points of general principle: I would suggest not relying on what is merely perceived to be "understood practice in real life courts". Evidence law is, especially recently, evolving. Even within the English legal tradition, codification has led to changes. Different jurisdictions do have different rules, and none are intrinsically better than others.

More fundamentally, the entirely different context actually makes it undesirable for strict application of RL evidence law in our courts here. We are a single, rather small community (in RL terms), where the amount of people who are happy to take on the role of representing a side to a legal dispute are limited. Then, those representatives are not people who practice TNP law for a living.

So I would submit that, when deciding on which questions are accepted and which evidence admitted, the Court should pay far more notice to what fairness and the interests of justice require here, and in the particular case and context, rather than applying RL law.

Pierconium and Aleisyr will be testifying for the prosecution. Given the evidence adduced so far, I am certain that defence counsel can deduce the type of questioning will occur. I am also certain that defence counsel can come up with a line of questioning in cross-examination that is directly relevant to this case and fair, within the guidelines posted by the learned Chief Justice above.

In short, I do not see the reason for the struggle defence counsel seems to be having to have his line of questioning pre-cleared. I also do not see the need to declare these witnesses hostile. They are our witnesses, obviously more leeway will be given to defence counsel in cross-examination.

With regards to the expert witness called by the defence, we would note our objection to any leading question other than ones which would rely on whatever exeprtise the defence is claiming the witness has, and in regards to a hypothetical. We do not believe that the interests of justice are served at all by allowing defence to ask leading questions of their witness with regards to this case. Even with regards to hypotheticals, we reserve the right to object to the questioning if we deem it to be attempting to elicit a particular opinion from the witness, rather than pose various situations to them.

We have not heard from the defence nor the judge as to whether the suggested time is suitable for them. I believe that Pierconium will be on IRC.
 
generally speaking, in real life as well as Nationstates, the less experienced the counsel the more "laissez-faire" they prefer the conduct of trials. Mistakes can more easily be circumvented. More experienced counsels prefer, and can work within, a much more structured approach.

but i have no doubt the Attorney General will prevail.

They are our witnesses....
Click to expand...
 
guy:
They are our witnesses....
Click to expand...

eluvatar:
Pierconium (named by the Defense as 'hostile' -- assumed to be Prosecution's witness as they have provided evidence for the Prosecution)
Aleisyr (named by the Defense as 'hostile' -- assumed to be Prosecution's witness as they have provided evidence for the Prosecution)
Click to expand...

Objection, your honour. the prosecution has not formally called either Pierconium or Aliesyr as witnesses. By making this assumption, your honour is, effectively, constructing the Prosecution's evidence submission for them.
 
I believe that just about every post of mine at the least implies that they will be giving testimony-in-chief for the prosecution. Indeed, my latest one has stated that "Pierconium and Aleisyr will be testifying for the prosecution." The Court's rules require verification of screenshots, and so at least for that purpose, we will be calling them to testify.

If to satisfy my learned friend he would like me to call Pierconium and Aleisyr, I hereby do so formally.
 
implies (Guy) .... Assumes (Eluvatar)

Oh dear.

Let's do this trial on at least the semblance of professionalism, shall we? only Kangaroo courts run the other way.
 
You really, really do not understand the concept of "Hostile witness", do you? It is very different from "opponent's witness."

I suggest some time on Wiki or Google would be productive.
 
If defence counsel has any substantiated allegation of lack of professionalism to put forward, he should do so.

Until then, he should actually advance this trial by responding here or via PM as to the scheduling of depositions.
 
Actually, it appears that it is you who does not understanding the concept of a 'hostile witness'.

In at least every RL jurisdiction I'm familiar with, a hostile witness is one whose actual evidence is contrary to your case. You cannot presume a hostile witness, only ask for one to be declared as such if their answers turn out to be damaging to your case.

Further, this designation has no basis in TNP law. You cannot just make up regional law as you go, to suit your mishandling of the case.

It's simple: I'll be examining those two witness in-chief. You can then have them for cross examination. If your line of questioning is relevant to the case, you should be able to handle it.
 
It... Really doesn't matter whether you have them in cross, or as "hostile witnesses". If you see such a distinction, let me know.

Until then, it makes no sense for the defence to examine-in-chief the prosecution's primary witnesses.
 
For the record, I called Aliesyr and Pierconium as witnesses on Oct 8 2016, 03:29 PM.
Guy called those same witnesses on Oct 14 2016, 12:52pm

I would also protest at the way the prosecution seems to be dictating the terms of this trial, in the following post:

It's simple: I'll be examining those two witness in-chief. You can then have them for cross examination. If your line of questioning is relevant to the case, you should be able to handle it.
Click to expand...

I am sure your honour will agree that Guy is making calls that the presiding justice ought, properly, to make.
 
I would also add that since the defence has not yet called any other witnesses (other than the expert testimony of lord Ravenclaw) they are also the defence's "primary witnesses".
 
If the defense insists on asking its questions first, it can do so, but I think that would not make much sense if the defense hopes to cross-examine the witnesses if or when they are asked to verify documentary evidence.
 
Work out among yourselves when and where to hold the depositions of Aleisyr and Pierconiuom. I would suggest, for the sake of simplicity, having the prosecution ask their questions first, and then have the defense cross-examine. If the defense believes it has a right to question them first based on having named them as witnesses first in the trial topic, and wishes to do so, I see no reason to block that.

Hold the depositions already.
 
Apologies to the Court, but a few points of clarification regarding the status of at least one witness. Feel free to move this to the appropriate location if the trial thread is not it.

I was approached by the Deputy Attorney General via Telegram on or about the 8th of October in order to ascertain my willingness to provide verification of the evidence.

I have not at this point received any notification (outside of the happenstance of reading it in this thread) from the prosecution of this case in regards to my standing as a potential "hostile witness".

Further, the Deputy Attorney General has sought to coordinate my deposition on multiple occasions, including having me present today, but has not received any confirmation from the prosecution regarding the timetable.

While I am available to provide my testimony, I find it somewhat disingenuous for one party to "claim" my status without having taken any time to notify me directly of these proceedings or their desire to have me present.

Also, in reading Section 3 of your Adopted Court Rules, it would appear that the two parties are discussing two different scenarios. I have been asked by the prosecution to provide verification of the evidence. First, I am asked a series of questions by the prosecution and the defense counsel can select to object to those questions but the prosecution does not have to withdraw them. This is not, at least as a foreign observer reviewing your laws, a trial of the witness. The defense counsel can not cross-examine me in media res and according to the current structure of your law, it would appear that I can not be questioned about anything except the evidence. Since the defense wishes to cross-examine me then a deposition can be scheduled only if I provide a direct witness statement, and the procedures for this seem very clear.

So, I guess the question is what form of deposition is this? In the first instance, I can simply provide the Presiding Justice with a witness statement directly (Section 3.11) and the defense can schedule their own deposition after the fact (Section 3.12), or I can provide a deposition with both parties present, but only the prosecution can ask questions directly (Sections 3.7–3.9).

I can not find a point within the Court Rules that allows the defense to question a witness during their initial evidence verification deposition.
 
I cannot speak for the prosecution or their line of questioning. But the defence does not intend to ask questions of evidence verification.
 
While it's true that Section 3(12) seems to suggest that a cross-examination needs to occur after the deposition, in fairness to witnesses, it seems more reasonable to hold them sequentially. We do

I've just received a PM from Flem which unfortunately does seem to indicate that we will not both be available at the same time this weekend.
 
Sorry, pressed the wrong button there. We don't see any issues that would arise out of getting it all out of the way at once, apart from not being able to get rulings from the moderating Justice on admissibility between the two examinations.
 
However you wish to do it. I was just assuming we would follow your Court Rules. Imagine that.

Also, as I am available this weekend, would it not be prudent to run the deposition via a forum thread as allowed under the Court Rules? Generally, things like individual IRC schedules should not prevent the forward progress of a trial, correct?

To the defense counsel, I will not be answering questions that are not germane to the evidence. If your questions are not related to the process of evidence verification then they would appear to not be allowed, again, according to your Court Rules. While I shouldn't have to say it, I will remind you that I am not on trial here and my presence is a courtesy.

According to those rules, again, without a witness statement from myself, defense counsel can not even ask me questions directly. If you need to change your rules to make my deposition a special case, so be it. But, they are your rules.
 
My questions would be germaine to the charges that my client is accused of. Nothing in the questions would be accusing you of anything untoward.
 
once again I will defer to the presiding justice. If he decides that the witness may only be asked questions that pertain to the verification of physical evidence that may be presented in this trial, then I see no need for defence to be involved in this, since we have already said that we do not contest the physical evidence that may be presented.

RL: Now I really MUST get off to the hospital!
 
I, again, simply point to the Adopted Court Rules. As I would not want to infringe on TNP's legal system as an outsider, I can do nothing but adhere to the rules you have provided for me.
 
I think the witness is misreading the rules. The rules do not limit testimony to evidence verification. The rules do not limit depositions to exclude cross-examination.

The witness is certainly able to decline to answer questions they do not wish to answer, and are absolutely entitled to decline to answer questions that they suspect might open them to prosecution.

Questions of the witness should be relevant to the documents the witness is associated with. This does not mean they can only relate to whether the documents are true copies.
 
Eluvatar:
I think the witness is misreading the rules. The rules do not limit testimony to evidence verification. The rules do not limit depositions to exclude cross-examination.

The witness is certainly able to decline to answer questions they do not wish to answer, and are absolutely entitled to decline to answer questions that they suspect might open them to prosecution.

Questions of the witness should be relevant to the documents the witness is associated with. This does not mean they can only relate to whether the documents are true copies.
Click to expand...
I will, of course, concede to the word of the Presiding Justice, but I wanted to clarify a few points, especially as Eluvatar indicates something is being misread.

The Adopted Court Rules do not include any questioning of a witness outside of evidence-related issues. Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure outlines the process by which a trial occurs. During the 'Argumentation' phase (2.3.c) both sides argue the points of the evidence, there is not a cross-examination of witnesses.

Section 3 regarding evidence very clearly states that evidence can be verified via deposition, but that is not even a requirement. Also, section 3.5 clearly states that a deposition is different from a witness statement and 3.12 clearly states that defense counsel can set up a separate deposition to question a witness providing a statement. As no statement has been presented, then under what pretext are you creating a deposition in which both the prosecution and defense are allowed to ask questions? Just curious, because that is not what the Court Rules state.

How is it being misread?
 
I am permitting the Witness to air their questions and concerns. Persons with no immediate connection to the trial would have no reason to speak.
 
Eluvatar:
Witness testimony is evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is commonly understood. But, it does not address my questions regarding the rules. If I provide the Court with a witness statement then the defense can request a deposition. If I provide prosecution with an evidence verification deposition then the defense can not ask me questions during those proceedings. It isn't ambiguous.
 
That said, I will let the matter rest and follow whatever guidelines the Presiding Justice is suggesting. I am just pointing out that having a set of rules in place and then not following them seems a bit odd. Especially when it seems at least one party has made assumptions about my role in the trial without bothering to inform me of it directly.
 
thus far we have the prosecutor seeking to dictate how a defence witness is handled and a witness holding a discussion about the sort of testimony they are giving.

Nothing about this trial is odd any more.
 
flemingovia:
thus far we have the prosecutor seeking to dictate how a defence witness is handled and a witness holding a discussion about the sort of testimony they are giving.

Nothing about this trial is odd any more.
Click to expand...
I sought clarification because the Adopted Court Rules do not appear to be being followed.

I am not a defence witness as I have not been contacted by the defence as such. As I noted earlier, I was contacted by the prosecution to give verification of the evidence. As of this moment, that is the only reason I am here.

You have labelled me as a hostile witness but under your Adopted Court Rules you can not even directly examine me in the current situation, which, according to most definitions is one of the qualifications for the label.

Regardless, I have stated I will adhere to the direction of the Presiding Justice, which evidently includes you being allowed to question me outside of the Adopted Court Rules procedure... aquila non capit muscas.
 
Meh. If the witness is not willing to be examined, that is his prerogative. that, in itself, is evidence.

Ego non musca sum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top